• CalendarJuly 15-16, 2013 – Global Patenting Strategy and Practice (American Conference
    Institute) – New
    York, NY

    July 15-19, 2013 – Patent Law Summer
    Intensive
    (Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law) – New York, NY

    July 16, 2013 – FTC v. Actavis: Practical Implications of the Landmark
    Supreme Court Decision
    (Law
    Seminars International) – 3:00 to 4:00
    pm (Eastern)

    July
    17, 2013 – European biotech patent law update (D
    Young & Co) – 4:00 am, 7:00 am, 12:00 pm (EDT)

    July 17,
    2013 – The Myriad
    Decision: Practical Implications for
    Biotechnology Companies Protecting IP Assets
    (Law
    Seminars International) – 3:00 to 4:00 pm (Eastern)

    July 17-18, 2013 – Legal
    and Regulatory Summit on Generic Drugs
    (American Conference
    Institute) – New York, NY

    July 22, 2013 – IP & Diagnostics Symposium (Biotechnology
    Industry Organization) – Alexandria, VA

    July 24, 2013 – AIA and Patent Prosecution: Navigating the
    Ethical Grey Areas
    (Strafford) – 1:00 to 2:30 pm
    (EDT)

    July 28-30, 2013 – 2013 Annual Meeting & Conference (National Association of Patent Practitioners) – San
    Diego, CA

    July 30,
    2013 – Are We Innovators, or Are We
    Trolls: The Slippery Slope of Defining A Patent Troll
    (McDonnell
    Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP) – 10:00 to 11:15 am (CT)

    July 31 to August 2, 2013 – Advanced Patent Law Seminar (Chisum Patent Academy) – Seattle, WA

    August 5-7, 2013 – Advanced Patent Law Seminar (Chisum Patent Academy) – Seattle, WA

    August 8, 2013 – Analyzing and Adapting to the Supreme Court's
    Myriad Ruling
    (Technology
    Transfer Tactics) – 1:00 to 2:00 pm
    (Eastern)

    August 8-11,
    2013 – 2013 Annual Meeting (American Bar
    Association) – San Francisco, CA

    August 21, 2013 – Inducement to Infringe in Hatch-Waxman Litigation: Lessons from Commil USA v. Cisco Systems and Bayer Schering v. Lupin for Pharma
    Patents
    (Strafford) – 1:00 to 2:30 pm (EDT)

    August
    22, 2013 – What are the Implications of CLS
    Bank Int'l v. Alice Corp
    . on Computer-Implemented Inventions?
    (McDonnell
    Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP) – 10:00 to 11:15 am (CT)

    September 17-18, 2013 – FDA Boot Camp (American Conference
    Institute) – Boston, MA

    September 18, 2013 – Conflicts in Patent Prosecution: Avoiding the
    Ethical Pitfalls Minimizing Risks of Malpractice Liability and Ethics Sanctions
    (Strafford) – 1:00 to 2:30 pm (EDT)

    ***Patent Docs is a media partner of this conference or CLE

  • Boston SkylineAmerican Conference
    Institute (ACI) will be holding the next session of its FDA Boot Camp
    conference on September 17-18, 2013 in Boston, MA.  ACI faculty will help attendees:

    • Master the basics
    of the application and approval processes for drugs, biologics, and devices
    • Comprehend the
    structure of the FDA and the roles of the three major agency centers:  CDER, CBER, and CDHR
    • Develop a
    practical working knowledge of clinical trials for drugs and biologics and the
    clearance process for devices
    • Learn how devices
    are classified, monitored, and regulated
    • Appreciate the
    complexities of pharmaceutical IP and the regulatory balance between brand name
    and generic products
    • Recognize the
    pivotal role of labeling in the drug and biologics approval process
    • See the
    importance of cGMPs to the post-approval regulatory process
    • Navigate the
    protocols of adverse events monitoring, signal detection, product withdrawals,
    and recalls

    BrochureIn particular,
    ACI's faculty will offer presentations on the following topics:

    • The Basics: Understanding and Working with
    the FDA — Jurisdiction, Functions, Organization, and Operations
    • The Nature of the Approval Process
    • Understanding the Clinical Trial Process for
    Drugs and Biologics
    • Obtaining and Challenging Market Exclusivity
    for Drug Products and Biologic Products: IP Protection, Data Exclusivity,
    Trademark and Brand Protection, Hatch-Waxman, BPCIA, and More:
    • Part 1 — Overview of Patent and Trademark
    Issues
    • Part 2 — Hatch-Waxman and BPCIA Overview
    • Drugs and Biologics: Labeling
    • cGMPs: Drugs and Biologics (Current Good
    Manufacturing Practices)
    • Adverse Events Monitoring, Pharmacovigilance
    and Risk Management
    • Medical Devices: Classifications, the
    Essentials of the Premarket Review Process, and Post-Market Requirements and
    Concerns
    • Recall Guidance for Drugs, Biologics, and
    Medical Devices: What You Need to Know

    A pre-conference
    workshop on the "Fundamentals of FDA Regulatory Law" and
    "Resolving Ethical Challenges Encountered During the Drug Approval
    Process" will be offered on September 16, 2013 from 1:00 to 5:00 pm.  The first part of the workshop will provide a
    basic overview of FDA regulations and will prepare attendees for the in-depth
    discussions that will take place throughout the conference, and explore ethical
    issues that may arise in the context of communications with FDA on behalf of
    clients.  The second part of the workshop
    will explore ethical issues that may arise in the context of communications
    with FDA on behalf of clients.

    Two post-conference
    master classes will be offered on September 18, 2013.  The first master class, entitled
    "Hatch-Waxman and BPCIA: Overview of Biosimilars and Life Cycle Planning
    for Drugs and Biologics," will provide an in-depth overview of biosimilars
    as well as analyses of bioequivalence and exclusivities and their role in
    patent and product life cycle management. 
    The second master class, entitled "Post-Approval Marketing Guidance
    and Preemption Protocols," will address issues that arise post-approval,
    including advertising, promotion, and off-label promotion and enforcement, as
    well as preemption fundamentals.

    An agenda for the
    conference can be found here.  A complete brochure for this conference,
    including an agenda, detailed descriptions of conference sessions, list of
    speakers, and registration form can be obtained here.

    ACI - American Conference InstituteThe registration
    fee is $2,295 (conference alone), $2,895 (conference and workshop or conference
    and one master class), or $3,295 (conference, workshop, and one master class).  Those registering by July 19, 2013 will
    receive a $300 discount and those registering by August 16, 2013 will receive a
    $200 discount.  Patent Docs readers who reference the discount code "PD
    200" will receive $200 off the current price tier when registering.  Those interested in registering for the
    conference can do so here,
    by e-mailing CustomerService@AmericanConference.com, by calling 1-888-224-2480,
    or by faxing a registration form to 1-877-927-1563.

    Patent Docs is a media partner of ACI's FDA Boot Camp conference.

  • LSI - Law Seminars International - blueLaw
    Seminars International (LSI) will be offering a one-hour telebriefing on "The Myriad
    Decision: Practical Implications for
    Biotechnology Companies Protecting IP Assets" on July 17,
    2013 from 3:00 to 4:00 pm (Eastern).  Dr.
    Barbara R. Rudolph of Finnegan
    Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner LLP will moderate a panel that
    includes Jennifer L. Swize of Jones Day
    and Courtenay C. Brinckerhoff of Foley
    & Lardner LLP.  The panel will
    discuss the Myriad decision and the possible implications for patent
    procurement, patent litigation, the biotechnology industry, and the future of
    medical research.  Among the topics to be
    covered are:

    •
    Impact of the Myriad Decision on
    patents for genetic research
    •
    How the decision distinguishes between natural and synthetic gene sequences
    •
    Legal and business implications for the biotech industry
    •
    New strategies for protecting DNA-based intellectual property moving forward

    A
    Q&A will follow the presentation and last for up to 30 minutes.

    The
    registration fee is $150 per caller and $100 for each additional person on the
    same line who desires continuing education credit.  Those interested in registering for the
    telebriefing, can do so here.

  • Strafford #1Strafford
    will be offering a webinar/teleconference on "Inducement to Infringe in Hatch-Waxman Litigation: Lessons from Commil USA v. Cisco Systems and Bayer Schering v. Lupin for Pharma
    Patents" on August 21, 2013 from 1:00 to 2:30 pm (EDT).  Thomas
    L. Irving, Dr. David P. Frazier, and Robert F. Shaffer of Finnegan Henderson
    Farabow Garrett & Dunner provide patent counsel with guidance on
    claim and label language; to proactively coordinate patent, regulatory and
    clinical personnel; and to maintain consistency between claims and likely or
    actual label language throughout patent prosecution and label negotiation with
    the FDA.  The webinar will review the
    following questions:

    •
    What can be learned from the AstraZeneca v. Apotex, Bayer Schering v.
    Lupin
    , and Commil USA v. Cisco Systems Inc. decisions?
    •
    What are the best approaches to maintain consistency between claims and likely
    or actual label language?
    •
    What steps can be taken to maintain the coordination of patent, regulatory and
    clinical personnel throughout the patent prosecution and label negotiation with
    the FDA?

    The
    registration fee for the webinar is $297 ($362 for registration and CLE processing).  Those registering by July 26, 2013 will
    receive a $50 discount.  Those interested
    in registering for the webinar, can do so here.

  • D Young & CoD
    Young & Co will be offering its next European biotech patent law update on July
    17, 2013.  The 45-minute webinar will be
    offered at three times: 4:00 am, 7:00 am, 12:00 pm (EDT). D Young & Co
    European Patent Attorneys Robert Dempster and Simon O'Brien will provide an
    essential update and live Q&A on EPO biotechnology case law.

    While
    there is no fee to participate, attendees must register in advance.  Those wishing to register can do so here.

  • MBHB Logo 2McDonnell
    Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP will be offering a live webinar entitled
    "What are the Implications of CLS
    Bank Int'l v. Alice Corp
    . on Computer-Implemented Inventions?" on August
    22, 2013 from 10:00 am to 11:15 am (CT). 
    MBHB attorney Rory P. Shea will cover the potential implications of the CLS
    Bank
    decision on claims directed to computer-implemented inventions.  Topics to be covered include:

    •
    A review of the CLS Bank
    decision and the takeaways from that decision
    • A review of how courts are interpreting and
    applying the CLS Bank decision since it was handed down
    • A discussion of how the CLS Bank decision
    may impact the prosecution and litigation of claims directed to
    computer-implemented inventions going forward

    While
    there is no fee to participate, attendees must register in advance.  Those wishing to register can do so here.  CLE credit is pending for the states of California,
    Georgia, Illinois, North Carolina, New Jersey, New York and Virginia.

  • By Donald Zuhn —

    Washington - Capitol #5On June 28, Rep. Allyson
    Schwartz (D-PA) introduced legislation (H.R. 2605)
    to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a deduction for "patent
    box" profit from the use of U.S. patents (and foreign patents in certain
    circumstances).  The bill, also known as
    the Manufacturing Innovation in America Act of 2013, is identical to legislation
    that Rep. Schwartz introduced last year. 
    The term "patent box"
    refers to a tax incentive that provides a reduced tax rate on profits derived
    from products that incorporate patents.  The
    tax incentive is known as a "patent box" because there is a box for patent profits to
    check on the tax form.

    Schwartz, AllysonIn a press release
    that was issued when the legislation was introduced last year, Rep. Schwartz
    (at left) noted that while the U.S. "leads the world in innovation and research and
    development,  . . . our current tax code
    fails to reflect the challenges of a competitive global economy, especially as
    it relates to domestic manufacturing." 
    According to Rep. Schwartz, the legislation she introduced would "further
    incentivize innovation, research and development, and manufacturing in the
    United States [by] reduc[ing] business taxes by more than half, to a 10 percent
    rate, for companies that manufacture patented products in the United States,"
    thereby "lead[ing] to both U.S. and foreign companies bringing jobs back
    to the United States, as well as the creation of new jobs."  Her co-sponsor last year, Rep. Charles
    Boustany, Jr. (R-LA) — who has yet to sign on to the bill this year — noted
    last year that:

    As the global economy continues to grow, the
    emergence of tools, such as ‘Patent Boxes,’ seek to drive domestic research and
    development while creating cutting-edge technologies.  Aimed to retain home-grown innovation, these
    tools allow for countries to promote domestic talent and incentivize companies
    to expand.  America should look toward
    engaging in this practice as well.  This
    tax rate reduction will lead to job creation across the country in sectors
    ranging from life-saving medical technology development, to next-generation
    energy technologies.

    Biogen IdecBiogen Idec Vice-President
    Lynne Sullivan indicated that the "legislation takes an important step
    towards making the U.S. corporate tax system globally competitive, and will
    drive domestic job growth in research and development and high-tech
    manufacturing."

    Rep. Schwartz explained
    that the bill would provide a 10% tax rate on the sale of qualifying patented products
    by American businesses.  Among the
    business sectors that she expects to benefit from the legislation are the
    pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors. 
    According to Rep. Schwartz, in order for a company to qualify for the
    reduced tax rate, the company must have a U.S. patent, and a substantial
    portion of the patents covering the product must be the result of research and
    development performed in the U.S.  The
    legislation specifies that a foreign patent may also be treated as a
    "qualified patent" under the bill if the foreign patent is "for
    the same or substantially similar invention or application" as a U.S.
    patent that the taxpayer holds or exclusively licenses, and provided that the
    taxpayer holds or exclusively licenses the foreign patent.  The bill's definitions of patent box profit,
    IP profit, routine profit, allocation method, patent gross receipts, and qualified
    patent property fall well outside the scope of this blog, so readers (and tax
    attorneys) who are interested in obtaining more details should consult the bill
    itself
    .

    Noting that "[o]ur
    global economic competitors — including China, France, Spain and soon the
    United Kingdom — have tax rates varying from 5 to 10 percent on the income
    generated from patents or other types of intellectual property," Rep.
    Schwartz believes that H.R. 2605 would fix "an outdated tax code that
    doesn't reflect our 21st century innovation economy," and encourage
    companies who conduct research an product development in the U.S. to also establish
    manufacturing operations in this country, rather than overseas.

    After being introduced, the
    bill was referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.

  • By
    Kevin E. Noonan —

    MyriadA day after Myriad
    Genetics sued Ambry Genetics for patent infringement, the company filed
    suit in the District of Utah, Central Divisions against Gene by Gene Ltd. (Case
    No. 2:13-cv-00643-EJF; complaint).  The complaint is nearly identical
    to Myriad's complaint against Ambry Genetics, and once again Myriad is joined
    by the University of Utah Research Foundation, the Trustees of the University
    of Pennsylvania, HSC Research and Development Limited Partnership, and
    Endorecherche Inc.

    This Complaint
    alleges that:

    Defendant, through its DNA Traits division, began offering its BRCA1 and BRCA2 analysis
    as part of its testing menu on June 13, 2013.  Defendant offers stand-alone
    tests comprising full gene sequencing and analyses for the BRCA 1 and BRCA 2
    genes.

    Defendant is infringing, contributing to the infringement of, and/or inducing
    others to infringe
    [each of the nine asserted patents] by making, manufacturing, promoting,
    marketing, advertising, distributing, offering for sale and selling and/or
    causing to be offered or sold BRCA1 and BRCA2 products that infringe at least
    the following claim of
    [each of the patents in suit] literally and/or under the doctrine of
    equivalents [].

    The specific claims
    Myriad alleges are infringed include the following:  claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 5,709,999; claims 6, 16 and 17 of  U.S. Patent No. 5,747,282; claims 7, 8,
    12, 23, and 26 of U.S.
    Patent No. 5,753,441; claims 29 and 30 of U.S. Patent No. 5,837,492; claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 6,033,857; claims 2, 3 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 5,654,155; claims 2, 3,
    4, 5, 6, and 7 of U.S.
    Patent No. 5,750,400; claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 6,951,721; and claims 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 14,
    17, 18, 19 of U.S. Patent No. 7,250,497.  Missing from the complaint against Gene by Gene are allegations of
    infringement of claims 32 and 33 of U.S. Patent No. 6,051,379
    asserted in the complaint Myriad filed yesterday against Ambry Genetics.

    Gene by GeneOnce again, Myriad
    and its co-plaintiffs request judgment of patent infringement, an injunction,
    an accounting and damages, delivery for destruction of all "products"
    that infringe any of the asserted claims, a finding of willful infringement,
    and a request for attorneys' fees, enhanced damages and costs of suit, as well
    as a jury trial.

    The genetic
    diagnostics community awaits the identity of the next of its members who
    announced plans to market BRCA gene testing that Myriad decides to sue.  It appears that Myriad is serious about
    protecting its intellectual property until the company's patents expire over
    the next few years.

  • By Alison Baldwin —

    Fresenius Medical CareJust before the July 4th
    holiday, the Federal Circuit issued its ruling in Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter International, Inc. ("Fresenius
    II
    ").  The Federal Circuit framed
    the question at issue as:  "Whether under the reexam statute, the
    cancellation of claims by the PTO is binding in pending district court
    infringement litigation."  But the
    question likely at issue for most practitioners in reviewing the case is "When
    is the district court's determination considered 'final'?"

    The case has a long history dating
    back to 2003 when Fresenius filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment of
    invalidity of three Baxter patents, including claims 26-31 of the U.S. Patent No.
    5,247,434 patent (the only patent and claims relevant to the present
    discussion).  In 2007, the District Court
    granted Baxter's motion for JMOL, finding that Fresenius has presented
    insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict of invalidity of the '434
    patent.  Fresenius Med. Care Holdings, Inc. v. Baxter Int'l, Inc., No.
    03-CV-1431, 2007 WL 518804 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2007).  The Federal Circuit  affirmed the District Court on the issue of
    validity with respect to the '434 patent, but vacated the District Court's
    injunction and post verdict royalty awards and remanded the case back to the District Court regarding those issues.  Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int'l, Inc.,
    582 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ("Fresenius I").  In March of 2012, the District Court awarded
    Baxter post verdict damages at a reduced royalty rate and entered final
    judgment.  Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int'l, Inc., No. 03-CV-1431, 2012 WL
    761712 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2012).

    BaxterHowever, the execution of this
    final judgment was stayed by the District Court, because while the litigation
    was ongoing in the District Court, an ex parte reexamination of the '434 patent
    was occurring in parallel in the U.S. Patent Office.  In 2005, two years after filing the
    declaratory judgment case in the District Court, Fresenius also filed a request
    for ex parte reexamination of the same claims of the '434 patent.  In December 2007, the examiner entered a
    final rejection finding claims 26-31 of the '434 patent invalid as
    obvious.  This determination was affirmed
    by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in March of 2010.  Ex
    parte Baxter, Int'l, Inc
    ., No. 2009-006493, 2010 WL 1048980 (B.P.A.I. Mar.
    18, 2010).  The BPAI determination was affirmed
    by the Federal Circuit in May 2012.  In
    re Baxter Int'l, Inc.
    , 678 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2012).  Thus,
    we now have Baxter prevailing before the District Court and Fresenius prevailing
    at the USPTO, setting the stage for the present appeal to determine which party
    would ultimately prevail.  For the majority of the
    panel, the winner is Fresenius.  For
    Judge Newman, the winner should have been Baxter.

    Much of the discussion by the
    Court focuses on the history of the reissue and reexamination statutes.  However, everyone (even Baxter and dissenting
    Judge Newman) agrees that in general, when a claim is cancelled through reissue
    or reexamination, the patentee loses any cause of action based on that claim,
    and any pending litigation in which the claims are asserted becomes moot.  Where the real dispute lies is whether or not
    the USPTO's cancellation of claims 26-31 of the '434 patent should be given
    weight at this point in the District Court litigation.

    The majority held that the USPTO's
    cancellation of the '434 patent claims rendered the District Court's judgment
    moot because neither the 2007 entry of judgment by the District Court, the remand
    decision by the Federal Circuit in Fresenius
    I
    , nor the District Court's 2012 entry of judgment was "sufficiently
    final."  Fresenius II at 20.  The
    Court distinguished the finality of a judgment for purposes of determining res judicata from the finality of a
    judgment for purposes of immunity from the effect of the final judgment in the
    PTO proceedings.  Id. at 19.  While the District
    Court's 2007 judgment was final for purposes of appeal and might have been
    given preclusive effect in another infringement case between the parties, the Court held that "it was not sufficiently final to preclude application of
    the intervening final judgment" in a reexamination proceeding.  Id.  Furthermore, while the Federal Circuit's
    decision in Fresenius I affirmed the
    validity of the '434 patent, the Court held that this was also not sufficiently
    final to provide immunity from the intervening final judgment of the
    reexamination because the issue of post-judgment damages had been remanded back
    to the District Court.  Id. at 20.  The Court followed a traditional analysis of
    finality wherein if any issue of law or fact remains, such as the issue of
    post-judgment damages in this case, then the decision is not final for purposes
    of preclusion.  Id. at 20-21.

    In her dissent, Judge Newman
    took issue with the majority's view of finality.  In her opinion, the Federal Circuit's
    decision in Fresenius I resolved all
    issues of patent validity and created judicial finality.  Fresenius
    II
    (Dissent at 12).  Judge Newman
    opined that finality and preclusion should be imposed as to issues that were
    finally decided in full and fair litigation.  Id. at 16.  "[T]he issue of validity of the '434
    patent had been raised, litigated, and decided, with full participation of the
    accused infringer; it cannot be relitigated."  Id.
    at 14.  The majority would agree, the
    issue of validity of the '434 patent cannot be relitigated — but, in their
    view, it can definitely still be trumped.

    Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter
    International, Inc.
    (Fed. Cir. 2013)

    Panel: Circuit Judges Newman,
    Dyk, and Prost
    Opinion for the Court by Circuit Judge Dyk; dissenting opinion by Circuit Judge
    Newman

  • By
    Kevin E. Noonan —

    MyriadToday
    Myriad Genetics sued Ambry Genetics, Corp. in the District of Utah, Central Division
    for patent infringement of ten patents relating to genetic diagnostic testing
    (Case No. 2:13-cv-00640-RJS; complaint).  Ambry
    Genetics was one of the first companies to announce that it would provide genetic diagnostic testing for the BRCA 1 and BRCA 2
    genes on the day the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision in AMP v. Myriad Genetics on the question
    of "whether human genes are patentable."  Joining Myriad as plaintiffs are the
    University of Utah Research Foundation, the Trustees of the University of
    Pennsylvania, HSC Research and Development Limited Partnership, and
    Endorecherche Inc.

    The
    Complaint alleges that:

    Defendant began offering its
    BRCA1 and BRCA2 analysis as part of its cancer testing menu on June 13, 2013.  On information and belief, Defendant offers stand-alone tests comprising full
    gene sequencing and deletion/duplication analyses for the BRCA 1 and BRCA 2
    genes.  On information and belief, Defendant also offers full gene sequencing
    and deletion/duplication analyses for the BRCA 1 and BRCA 2 genes as part of
    multiple hereditary cancer panels that test cancer susceptibility using
    next-generation sequencing technology.

    Defendant is infringing,
    contributing to the infringement of, and/or inducing others to infringe the '999
    patent by making, manufacturing, promoting, marketing, advertising, distributing,
    offering for sale and selling and/or causing to be offered or sold certain
    BRCA1, BRCA2, BRCAPlus, BreastNext, OvaNext, and CancerNext products that
    infringe at least the following claim of [each of the patents in suit]
    literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents for ten patents owned or
    licensed to Myriad.

    The
    specific claims Myriad alleges are infringed include the following:

    First
    Claim for Relief:  U.S. Patent No.
    5,709,999

    Claim 6: A method for detecting a
    germline alteration in a BRCA1 gene, said alteration selected from the group
    consisting of the alterations set forth in Tables 12A, 14, 18 or 19 in a human
    which comprises analyzing a sequence of a BRCA1 gene or BRCA1 RNA from a human
    sample or analyzing a sequence of BRCA1 cDNA made from mRNA from said human
    sample with the proviso that said germline alteration is not a deletion of 4
    nucleotides corresponding to base numbers 4184-4187 of SEQ ID NO:1, wherein a
    germline alteration is detected by amplifying all or part of a BRCA1 gene in
    said sample using a set of primers specific for a wild-type BRCA1 gene to
    produce amplified BRCA1 nucleic acids and sequencing the amplified BRCA1
    nucleic acids.

    Second
    Claim for Relief: U.S. Patent No. 5,747,282

    Claim 6: An
    isolated DNA coding for a BRCA1 polypeptide, said polypeptide having the amino
    acid sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO:2, 
    wherein said DNA has the nucleotide sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO:1,
    and having at least 15 nucleotides of the DNA of claim 2.

    Claim 16: A pair
    of single-stranded DNA primers for determination of a nucleotide sequence of a
    BRCA1 gene by a polymerase chin reaction, the sequence of said primers being
    derived from human chromosome 17q, wherein the use of said primers in a
    polymerase chain reaction results in the synthesis of DNA having all or part of
    the sequence of the BRCA1 gene.

    Claim 17: The
    pair of primers of claim 16 wherein said BRCA1 gene has the nucleotide sequence
    set forth in SEQ ID NO:1.

    Third Claim for Relief: U.S. Patent No. 5,753,441

    Claim 7: A method
    for screening germline of a human subject for an alteration of a BRCA1 gene
    which comprises comparing germline sequence of a BRCA1 gene or BRCA1 RNA from a
    tissue sample from said subject or a sequence of BRCA1 cDNA made from mRNA from
    said sample with germline sequences of wild-type BRCA1 gene, wild-type BRCA1
    RNA or wild-type BRCA1 cDNA, wherein a difference in the sequence of the BRCA1
    gene, BRCA1 RNA or BRCA1 cDNA of the subject from wild-type indicates an
    alteration in the BRCA1 gene in said subject, wherein a germline nucleic acid
    sequence is compared by hybridizing a BRCA1 gene probe which specifically
    hybridizes to a BRCA1 allele to genomic DNA isolated from said sample and
    detecting the presence of a hybridization product wherein a presence of said
    product indicates the presence of said allele in the subject.

    Claim 8: A method
    for screening germline of a human subject for an alteration of a BRCA1 gene
    which comprises comparing germline sequence of a BRCA1 gene or BRCA1 RNA from a
    tissue sample from said subject or a sequence of BRCA1 cDNA made from mRNA from
    said sample with germline sequences of wild-type BRCA1 gene, wild-type BRCA1
    RNA or wild-type BRCA1 cDNA, wherein a difference in the sequence of the BRCA1
    gene, BRCA1 RNA or BRCA1 cDNA of the subject from wild-type indicates an
    alteration in the BRCA1 gene in said subject, wherein a germline nucleic acid
    sequence is compared by amplifying all or part of a BRCA1 gene from said sample
    using a set of primers to produce amplified nucleic acids and sequencing the
    amplified nucleic acid.

    Claim 12: A
    method for screening germline of a human subject for an alteration of a BRCA1
    gene which comprises comparing germline sequence of a BRCA1 gene or BRCA1 RNA
    from a tissue sample from said subject or a sequence of BRCA1 cDNA made from
    mRNA from said sample with germline sequences of wild-type BRCA1 gene, wild-type
    BRCA1 RNA or wild-type BRCA1 cDNA, wherein a difference in the sequence of the
    BRCA1 gene, BRCA1 RNA or BRCA1 cDNA of the subject from wild-type indicates an
    alteration in the BRCA1 gene in said subject, wherein a germline nucleic acid
    sequence is compared by amplifying BRCA1 nucleic acids from said sample to
    produce amplified nucleic acids, hybridizing the amplified nucleic acids to a
    BRCA1 DNA probe specific for a BRCA1 allele and detecting the presence of a
    hybridization product, wherein the presence of said product indicates the
    presence of said allele in the subject.

    Claim 23. A
    method for detecting a germline alteration in a BRCA1 gene, said alteration
    selected from the group consisting of the alterations set forth in Tables 11
    and 12 which comprises analyzing a sequence of the BRCA1 gene or BRCA1 RNA from
    a human sample or analyzing the sequence of BRCA1 CDNA made from mRNA from said
    sample, wherein a germline alteration is detected by amplifying all or part of
    a BRCA1 gene in said sample using a set of primers to produce amplified nucleic
    acids and sequencing the amplified nucleic acids.

    Claim 26.  A method for detecting a germline alteration
    in a BRCA1 gene, said alteration selected from the group consisting of the
    alterations set forth in Tables 11 and 12 which comprises analyzing a sequence
    of the BRCA1 gene or BRCA1 RNA from a human sample or analyzing the sequence of
    BRCA1 CDNA made from mRNA from said sample, wherein a germline alteration is
    detected by amplifying BRCA1 gene nucleic acids in said sample, hybridizing the
    amplified nucleic acids to a BRCA1 DNA probe specific for one of said
    alterations and detecting the presence of a hybridization product, wherein the
    presence of said product indicates the presence of said alteration.

    Fourth Claim for Relief: U.S. Patent No. 5,837,492

    Claim 29. A pair
    of single-stranded DNA primers of at least 15 nucleotides in length for
    determination of the nucleotide sequence of a BRCA2 gene by a polymerase chain
    reaction, the sequence of said primers being isolated from human chromosome 13,
    wherein the use of said primers in a polymerase chain reaction results in the
    synthesis of DNA comprising all or at least 15 contiguous nucleotides of the
    BRCA2 gene.

    Claim 30. The
    pair of primers of claim 29 wherein said BRCA2 gene has the nucleotide sequence
    set forth in SEQ ID NO:1.

    Fifth Claim for Relief: U.S. Patent No. 6,033,857

    Claim 4. A method
    for diagnosing a predisposition for breast cancer in a human subject which
    comprises comparing the germline sequence of the BRCA2 gene or the sequence of
    its mRNA in a tissue sample from said subject with the germline sequence of the
    wild-type BRCA2 gene or the sequence of its mRNA, wherein an alteration in the
    germline sequence of the BRCA2 gene or the sequence of its mRNA of the subject
    indicates a predisposition to said cancer, wherein the detection in the
    alteration in the germline sequence is determined by an assay selected from the
    group consisting of (a) observing shifts in electrophoretic mobility of single-stranded
    DNA on non-denaturing polyacrylamide gels, (b) hybridizing a BRCA2 gene probe
    to genomic DNA isolated from said tissue sample, (c) hybridizing an
    allele-specific probe to genomic DNA of the tissue sample, (d) amplifying all
    or part of the BRCA2 gene from said tissue sample to produce an amplified
    sequence and sequencing the amplified sequence, (e) amplifying all or part of
    the BRCA2 gene from said tissue sample using primers for a specific BRCA2
    mutant allele, (f) molecularly cloning all or part of the BRCA2 gene from said
    tissue sample to produce a cloned sequence and sequencing the cloned sequence,
    (g) identifying a mismatch between (1) a BRCA2 gene or a BRCA2 mRNA isolated
    from said tissue sample, and (2) a nucleic acid probe complementary to the
    human wild-type BRCA2 gene sequence, when molecules (1) and (2) are hybridized
    to each other to form a duplex, (h) amplification of BRCA2 gene sequences in
    said tissue sample and hybridization of the amplified sequences to nucleic acid
    probes which comprise wild-type BRCA2 gene sequences, (i) amplification of
    BRCA2 gene sequences in said tissue sample and hybridization of the amplified
    sequences to nucleic acid probes which comprise mutant BRCA2 gene sequences,
    (j) screening for a deletion mutation in said tissue sample, (k) screening for
    a point mutation in said tissue sample, (l) screening for an insertion mutation
    in said tissue sample, (m) in situ hybridization of the BRCA2 gene of said
    tissue sample with nucleic acid probes which comprise the BRCA2 gene.

    Sixth Claim for Relief: U.S. Patent No. 5,654,155

    Claim 2. A method
    of identifying individuals having a BRCA1 gene with a BRCA1 coding sequence not
    associated with breast or ovarian cancer comprising:
        a) amplifying a DNA fragment of an individual's
    BRCA1 coding sequence using an oligonucleotide primer which specifically
    hybridizes to sequences within the gene;
        b) sequencing said amplified fragment by dideoxy
    sequencing;
        c) repeating steps (a) and (b) until said
    individual's BRCA1 coding sequence is completely sequenced;
        d) comparing the sequence of said amplified DNA to
    the sequence of SEQ. ID. NO: 1;
        e) determining the presence or absence of each of
    the following polymorphic variations in said individual's BRCA1 coding
    sequence:
        AGC and ACT at position 2201, TTG and CTG at
    position 2430,  CCG and CTG at position
    2731,  GAA and GGA at position 3232, AAA
    and AGA at position 3667, TCT and TCC at position 4427, and ACT and GGT at
    position 4956;
        f) determining any sequence differences between
    said individual's BRCA1 coding sequences and SEQ. ID. NO: 1 wherein the
    presence of any of the said polymorphic variations and the absence of a
    polymorphism outside of positions 2201, 2430, 2731, 3232, 3667, 4427, and 4956,
    is correlated with an absence of increased genetic susceptibility to breast or
    ovarian cancer resulting from a BRCA1 mutation in the BRCA1 coding sequence.

    Claim 3. A method
    according to claim 2 wherein said oligonucleotide primer is labeled with a
    radiolabel, a fluorescent label, a bioluminescent label, a chemiluminescent
    label or an enzyme label

    Claim 4. A method
    of detecting an increased genetic susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancer
    in an individual resulting from the presence of a mutation in the BRCA1 coding
    sequence, comprising:
        a) amplifying a DNA fragment of an individual's
    BRCA1 coding sequence using an oligonucleotide primer which specifically
    hybridizes to sequences within the gene;
        b) sequencing said amplified fragment by dideoxy
    sequencing;
        c) repeating steps (a) and (b) until said
    individual's BRCA1 coding sequence is completely sequenced;
        d) comparing the sequence of said amplified DNA to
    the sequence of SEQ. ID. NO: 1;
        e) determining any sequence differences between
    said individual's BRCA1 coding sequences and SEQ. ID. NO: 1 to determine the
    presence or absence of polymorphisms in said individual's BRCA coding sequences
    wherein a polymorphism which is not any of the following:
        AGC or AGT at position 2201, TTG or CTG at position
    2430, CCG or CTG at position 2731, GAA or GGA at position 3232, AAA or AGA at
    position 3667, TCT or TCC at position 4427, and AGT or GGT at position 4956;
        is correlated with the potential of increased
    genetic susceptibility to breast or ovarian cancer resulting from a BRCA1
    mutation in the BRCA1 coding sequence.

    Seventh Claim for Relief: U.S. Patent No. 5,750,400

    Claim 2. A method
    of identifying individuals having a BRCA1 gene with a BRCA1 coding sequence not
    associated with ovarian or breast cancer disease, comprising:
        (a) amplifying a DNA fragment of an individual's
    BRCA1 coding sequence using an oligonucleotide primer which specifically
    hybridizes to sequences within the gene;
        (b) sequencing said amplified DNA fragment by
    dideoxy sequencing;
        (c) repeating steps (a) and (b) until said
    individual's BRCA1 coding sequence is completely sequenced;
        (d) comparing the sequence of said amplified DNA
    fragment to a BRCA1(omi) DNA sequence selected from the group
    consisting of: SEQ ID NO: 1 together with SEQ ID NO: 3, SEQ ID NO: 1 together
    with SEQ ID NO: 5, SEQ ID NO: 3 together with SEQ ID NO: 5, SEQ ID NO: 1
    together with SEQ ID NO: 3 together with SEQ ID NO: 5, SEQ ID NO: 3 and SEQ ID
    NO: 5;
        (e) determining the presence or absence of each of
    the following polymorphic variations in said individual's BRCA1 coding
    sequence:
            (i) C and T at position 2201,
            (ii) T and C at position 2430,
            (iii) C and T at position 2731,
            (iv) A and G at position 3232,
            (v) A and G at position 3667,
            (vi) T and C at position 4427, and
            (vii) A and G at position 4956;
        (f) determining any sequence differences between
    said individual's BRCA1 coding sequences and a BRCA1(omi) DNA
    sequence selected from the group consisting of: SEQ ID NO: 1 together with SEQ
    ID NO: 3, SEQ ID NO: 1 together with SEQ ID NO: 5, SEQ ID NO: 3 together with
    SEQ ID NO: 5, SEQ ID NO: 1 together with SEQ ID NO: 3 together with SEQ ID NO:
    5, SEQ ID NO: 3 and SEQ ID NO: 5, wherein the presence of said polymorphic
    variations and the absence of a variation outside of positions 2201, 2430,
    2731, 3232, 3667, 4427 and 4956 is correlated with an absence of increased
    genetic susceptibility to breast or ovarian cancer resulting from a BRCA1
    mutation in the BRCA1 coding sequence.

    Claim 3. A method
    of identifying individuals having a BRCA1 gene with a BRCA1 coding sequence not
    associated with ovarian or breast cancer disease, comprising:
        (a) amplifying a DNA fragment of an individual's
    BRCA1 coding sequence using an oligonucleotide primer which specifically
    hybridizes to sequences within the gene;
        (b) sequencing said amplified DNA fragment by
    dideoxy sequencing;
        (c) repeating steps (a) and (b) until said
    individual's BRCA1 coding sequence is completely sequenced;
        (d) comparing the sequence of said amplified DNA
    fragment to a BRCA1(omi)) DNA sequence selected from the group
    consisting of: SEQ ID NO: 1 together with SEQ ID NO: 3, SEQ ID NO: 1 together
    with SEQ ID NO: 5, SEQ ID NO: 3 together with SEQ ID NO: 5, SEQ ID NO: 1
    together with SEQ ID NO: 3 together with SEQ ID NO: 5, SEQ ID NO: 3 and SEQ ID
    NO: 5;
        (e) determining the presence or absence of each of
    the following polymorphic variations in said individual's BRCA1 coding
    sequence:
            (i) C and T at position 2201,
            (ii) T and C at position 2430,
            (iii) C an d T at position 2731,
            (iv) A and G at position 3232,
            (v) A and G at position 3667,
            (vi) T and C at position 4427, and
            (vii) A and G at position 4956; and
        (f) determining any sequence differences between
    said individual's BRCA1 coding sequences and a BRCA1(omi) DNA
    sequence selected from the group consisting of: SEQ ID NO: 1 together with SEQ
    ID NO: 3, SEQ ID NO: 1 together with SEQ ID NO: 5, SEQ ID NO: 3 together with
    SEQ ID NO: 5, SEQ ID NO: 1 together with SEQ ID NO: 3 together with SEQ ID NO:
    5, SEQ ID NO: 3 and SEQ ID NO: 5, wherein the presence of said polymorphic
    variations and the absence of a variation outside of positions 2201, 2430,
    2731, 3232, 3667, 4427 and 4956 is correlated with an absence of increased
    genetic susceptibility to breast or ovarian cancer resulting from a BRCA1
    mutation in the BRCA1 coding sequence;
        wherein codon variations occur at the following
    frequencies, respectively, in a Caucasian population of individuals with no
    family history of breast or ovarian cancer:
            (i) at position 2201, C and T occur at frequencies
    from about 35 to about 45%, and from about 55 to about 65%, respectively;
            (ii) at position 2430, T and C occur at frequencies
    from about 35 to about 45%, and from about 55 to about 65%, respectively;
            (iii) at position 2731, C and T occur at
    frequencies from about 25 to about 35%, and from about 65 to about 75%,
    respectively;
            (iv) at position 3232, A and G occur at frequencies
    from about 35 to about 45%, and from about 55 to about 65%, respectively;
            (v) at position 3667, A and G occur at frequencies
    from about 35 to about 45%, and from about 55 to about 65%, respectively;
            (vi) at position 4427, T and C occur at frequencies
    from about 45 to about 55%, and from about 45 to about 55%, respectively; and
            (vii) at position 4956, A and G occur at
    frequencies from about 35 to about 45%, and from about 55 to about 65%,
    respectively.

    Claim 4. A method
    according to claims 2 or 3, wherein said oligonucleotide primer is labeled with
    a radiolabel, a fluorescent label, a bioluminescent label, a chemiluminescent
    label, or an enzyme label.

    Claim 5. A method
    of detecting an increased genetic susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancer
    in an individual resulting from the presence of a mutation in the BRCA1 coding
    sequence, comprising:
        (a) amplifying a DNA fragment of an individual's
    BRCA1 coding sequence using an oligonucleotide primer which specifically
    hybridizes to sequences within the gene;
        (b) sequencing said amplified DNA fragment by
    dideoxy sequencing;
        (c) repeating steps (a) and (b) until said
    individual's BRCA1 coding sequence is completely sequenced;
        (d) comparing the sequence of said amplified DNA
    fragment to a BRCA1(omi) DNA sequence selected from the group
    consisting of: SEQ ID NO: 1 together with SEQ ID NO: 3, SEQ ID NO: 1 together
    with SEQ ID NO: 5, SEQ ID NO: 3 together with SEQ ID NO: 5, SEQ ID NO: 1
    together with SEQ ID NO: 3 together with SEQ ID NO: 5, SEQ ID NO: 3 and SEQ ID
    NO: 5;
        (e) determining any sequence differences between
    said individual's BRCA1 coding sequences and a BRCA1(omi) DNA
    sequence selected from the group consisting of: SEQ. ID. NO.: 1 together with
    SEQ ID NO: 3, SEQ ID NO: 1 together with SEQ ID NO: 5, SEQ ID NO: 3 together
    with SEQ ID NO: 5, SEQ ID NO: 1 together with SEQ ID NO: 3 together with SEQ ID
    NO: 5, SEQ ID NO: 3 and SEQ ID NO: 5 in order to determine the presence or
    absence of base changes in said individual's BRCA1 coding sequence wherein a
    base change which is not any one of the following:
            (i) C and T at position 2201,
            (ii) T and C at position 2430,
            (iii) C and T at position 2731,
            (iv) A and G at position 3232,
            (v) A and G at position 3667,
            (vi) T and C at position 4427, and
            (vii) A and G at position 4956, is correlated with
    the potential of increased genetic susceptibility to breast or ovarian cancer
    resulting from a BRCA1 mutation in the BRCA1 coding sequence.

    Claim 6. A method
    of detecting an increased genetic susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancer
    in an individual resulting from the presence of a mutation in the BRCA1 coding
    sequence, comprising:
        (a) amplifying a DNA fragment of an individual's
    BRCA1 coding sequence using an oligonucleotide primer which specifically
    hybridizes to sequences within the gene;
        (b) sequencing said amplified DNA fragment by
    dideoxy sequencing;
        (c) repeating steps (a) and (b) until said
    individual's BRCA1 coding sequence is completely sequenced;
        (d) comparing the sequence of said amplified DNA
    fragment to a BRCA1(omi) DNA sequence selected from the group
    consisting of: SEQ ID NO: 1 together with SEQ ID NO: 3, SEQ ID NO: 1 together
    with SEQ ID NO: 5, SEQ ID NO: 3 together with SEQ ID NO: 5, SEQ ID NO: 1
    together with SEQ ID NO: 3 together with SEQ ID NO: 5, SEQ ID NO: 3 and SEQ ID
    NO: 5;
        (e) determining any sequence differences between
    said individual's BRCA1 coding sequences and a BRCA1(omi) DNA
    sequence selected from the group consisting of: SEQ ID NO: 1 together with SEQ
    ID NO: 3, SEQ ID NO: 1 together with SEQ ID NO: 5, SEQ ID NO: 3 together with
    SEQ ID NO: 5, SEQ ID NO: 1 together with SEQ ID NO: 3 together with SEQ ID NO:
    5, SEQ ID NO: 3 and SEQ ID NO: 5 in order to determine the presence or absence
    of base changes in said individual's BRCA1 coding sequence wherein a base
    change which is not any one of the following:
            (i) C and T at position 2201,
            (ii) T and C at position 2430,
            (iii) C and T at position 2731,
            (iv) A and G at position 3232,
            (v) A and G at position 3667,
            (vi) T and C at position 4427, and
            (vii) A and G at position 4956, is correlated with
    the potential of increased genetic susceptibility to breast or ovarian cancer
    resulting from a BRCA1 mutation in the BRCA1 coding sequence, wherein codon
    variations occur at the following frequencies, respectively, in a Caucasian
    population of individuals with no family history of breast or ovarian cancer:
            (i) at position 2201, C and T occur at frequencies
    from about 35 to about 45%, and from about 55 to about 65%, respectively;
            (ii) at position 2430, T and C occur at frequencies
    from about 35 to about 45%, and from about 55 to about 65%, respectively;
            (iii) at position 2731, C and T occur at
    frequencies from about 25 to about 35%, and from about 65 to about 75%,
    respectively;
            (iv) at position 3232, A and G occur at frequencies
    from about 35 to about 45%, and from about 55 to about 65%, respectively;
            (v) at position 3667, A and G occur at frequencies
    from about 35 to about 45%, and from about 55 to about 65%, respectively;
            (vi) at position 4427, T and C occur at frequencies
    from about 45 to about 55%, and from about 45 to about 55%, respectively; and
            (vii) at position 4956, A and G occur at
    frequencies from about 35 to about 45%, and from about 55 to about 65%,
    respectively.

    Claim 7. A method
    according to claims 5 or 6, wherein said oligonucleotide primer is labeled with
    a radiolabel, a fluorescent label, a bioluminescent label, a chemiluminescent
    label, or an enzyme label.

    Eighth Claim for Relief: U.S. Patent No. 6,051,379

    Claim 32. A
    method of detecting a predisposition or higher susceptibility to cancer in an
    individual, comprising:
        (a) digesting DNA from an individual to obtain DNA
    fragments;
        (b) separating said DNA fragments;
        (c) detecting a DNA fragment containing nucleotide
    number 2192, 3772, 5193, 5374, 6495 or 6909 of the BRCA2 gene sequence or a
    sequence variation at nucleotide number 2192, 3772, 5193, 5374, 6495 or 6909 of
    the BRCA2 gene sequence by sequencing;
        (d) comparing the sequence of said fragment with
    the BRCA2 gene sequence to determine the presence or absence of a sequence
    variation at nucleotide number 2192, 3772, 5193, 5374, 6495 or 6909, wherein
    the presence of a sequence variation indicates a predisposition or higher
    susceptibility to cancer.

    Claim 33. A
    method according to claim 32 further comprising amplifying said DNA fragments
    prior to the detecting step (c).

    Ninth Claim for Relief: U.S. Patent No. 6,951,721

    Claim 5. A method
    for determining an omi haplotype of a human BRCA1 gene comprising: (a)
    determining the nucleotide sequence of the BRCA1 gene or fragment thereof from
    at least one female individual with a family history which indicates a
    predisposition to breast cancer, (b) comparing the determined nucleotide
    sequence from said female individual to SEQ ID NO: 263, and (c) determining the
    presence of the following nucleotide variations: thymine at nucleotides 2201
    and 2731, cytosine at nucleotides 2430 and 4427, and guanine at nucleotides
    3232, 3667 and 4956, wherein the presence of the nucleotide variations in the
    determined nucleotide sequence indicates the omi1 haplotype,  further comprising comparing the determined
    nucleotide sequence to SEQ ID NO: 265.

    Tenth Claim for Relief: U.S. Patent No. 7,250,497

    Claims 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 14, 17, 18, 19

    [Claim 1. An isolated
    nucleic acid comprising SEQ ID NO:6, and the complement thereof.

    Claim 2. The isolated nucleic acid of claim 1, wherein
    said isolated nucleic acid comprises SEQ ID NO:37, or the complement thereof.]

    Claim 3. A method of making the isolated nucleic
    acid of claim 2 comprising amplifying genomic DNA isolated from a sample
    obtained from a human patient.

    Claim 4. A method of making the isolated nucleic
    acid of claim 1 comprising amplifying genomic DNA isolated from a sample
    obtained from a human patient.

    Claim 5. The method of claim 4, wherein said sample
    is a blood sample.

    Claim 6. The method of claim 4, wherein said
    amplification is by the polymerase chain reaction.

    Claim 7. The method of claim 4, wherein said
    patient is being evaluated for an enhanced risk of cancer.

    Claim 8. The method of claim 4, wherein said cancer
    is breast or ovarian cancer.

    Claim 11. A method of making the isolated nucleic
    acid of claim 9 comprising amplifying genomic DNA isolated from a sample
    obtained from a human patient.

    Claim 14. A method of making the isolated nucleic
    acid of claim 12 comprising amplifying genomic DNA isolated from a sample
    obtained from a human patient.

    Claim 17. A method of making the isolated nucleic
    acid of claim 15 comprising amplifying genomic DNA isolated from a sample
    obtained from a human patient.

    Claim 18. The isolated nucleic acid of claim 1,
    wherein said isolated nucleic acid comprises SEQ ID NO:41, or the complement
    thereof.

    Claim 19. A
    method of making the isolated nucleic acid of claim 18 comprising amplifying
    genomic DNA isolated from a sample obtained from a human patient.

    These method claims differ from the claims
    invalidated by the District Court in the Myriad
    case and affirmed by the Federal Circuit, which recited as limitations merely "comparing"
    an individual's BRCA gene sequence with the "normal" one, and thus
    Myriad is less likely to be estopped from asserting these claims against Ambry.

    Ambry GeneticsMyriad's Relief Requested in its complaint includes
    judgment of patent infringement, an injunction, an accounting and damages, delivery for destruction of all "products"
    that infringe any of the asserted claims, a finding of willful infringement,
    and a request for attorneys' fees, enhanced damages and costs of suit.  Myriad also demands a jury trial.

    As has been discussed in earlier posts, some of
    these claims (e.g., directed to oligonucleotides)
    may be subject to invalidation on novelty grounds (see "Caught in a Time Warp: The (In)validity of BRCA1 Oligonucleotide Claims").  In addition, not
    all assignees are named in the complaint (most notably the U.S. Government "as
    represented by the Secretary of Health") and insofar as any of them are
    adjudged to be indispensible parties, any unwillingness to be joined might cause
    Myriad procedural difficulties.  But it
    is significant that Myriad has decided to assert these patents, and its
    continued ability to do so illustrates one of the generally unappreciated
    aspects of the Myriad case.  Plaintiffs in that case and their supporters,
    the ACLU and Public Patent Foundation, chose the claims against which to
    assert their challenge to the validity of Myriad's patents.  Which means, of course, that they chose not to challenge the claims Myriad is
    now asserting, leaving the plaintiffs (including breast cancer patients)
    without the full and complete remedy they no doubt were promised and that the
    press seems to believe the Supreme Court's June 13 decision gave
    them (see "Reaction to Supreme Court's Decision in AMP v. Myriad" and "Does the Myriad Decision Presage a Golden Age of Patent-Free Personalized Medicine?").  Instead, plaintiffs challenged claims to isolated DNA (characterized as "genes"),
    even though such claims are not infringed by the practice of modern genetic
    diagnostic methods.  The result of these strategic (and ultimately
    political or at least public-relations focused) decisions is that Myriad owns
    or has licensed patents that presumptively preclude Ambry Genetics or any other
    provider from offering BRCA gene-directed genetic diagnostic tests until these
    patents expire in the next few years.  In
    short, the parties are in exactly the same position that existed prior to the
    Myriad suit.  While this outcome should
    have been expected, it raises doubts about the consensus narrative of what "everybody
    knows" this case was all about.